I don’t think it’s a good idea to share all the personal details of a cop.

I think there's a balance to be struck. Should the cop's home address be shared? No. Should their face, badge number and service record be public? Absolutely. I also agree that all public servant's salaries (including employees of publicly traded companies) should be public.

The more exceptions a law has the complexer it gets and the more some people can abuse it.

Agreed, but something as complex as "the police" isn't going to have one solution fitting all circumstances. Whatever the solution is, it should be simple enough to explain, clearly and accurately, to an average 12 year old.

what a public database of the people doing their job allows for.

Any database, public or private, can be endlessly abused. This is the crux of the GDPR.

People should be held accountable for their actions and everybody should be held accountable in the same manner.

Yes, but that has always been less than perfect in practice. Transparency is always the answer. Increased transparency with increased accountability for inequity is the right direction to be moving, not all at once, but gradual continuous progress in the good direction is what we should be seeking. Unfortunately, people lately are standing up and cheering for what they call a "good direction" that is composed of more lies, corruption and ultimately more secrecy about what's really happening.

Just because a photo is made in public doesn’t mean it is a public photo, or at least it shouldn’t mean that. Again, to protect civilians.

That's going to be the tricky part about a future where 200MP 60fps video cameras cost less than $100, and digital storage costs less than $100 per TB.

I feel that outlawing or otherwise restricting the use of cameras in general will go poorly. It has been hobby-level practical for the past decade to drive around with license plate reading software, building your own database of who you pass where and when, and getting faces to go with that tracking data isn't hard either - setup a "neighborhood watch" of a dozen or more commuters and you'll have extensive tracking data on thousands of your neighbors, for maybe a couple thousand dollars in gear. Meta camera glasses may be socially offensive, but similar things are inevitable in the future - at least in the future where we continue to have smartphones and affordable internet connectivity.

Even if it's outlawed, that data will be collected. What laws can do is restrict public facing uses of it. Young people today need to grow up knowing that, laws or no laws, they will be recorded their whole lives.

Curious: how often in your field are people harassed out of work by politically motivated complaints?

Around here, restaurant owners are very vulnerable to that kind of harassment - they can literally be put out of business just by people complaining to the health department, with no real basis to the complaints. Its one thing that keeps restaurant owners out of politics.

Kindly, I believe your blind faith in your societal institutions to be at best naive and at worst a danger to liberty. I mean this as a genuine warning meant to be heeded, not a personal criticism directed at you. I'm an American. This exact blind institutional faith I see you and many other Europeans frequently espouse online was a core part of what caused the civil collapse of my own society. It will happen in yours too if you guys aren't careful. The prevalence of this way of thinking amongst Europeans I meet online is a dangerous omen. You guys remind me a lot of us back in the 90s. Please. Take it not from an ignorant American, but from a global citizen who has already been down the rough and tumble line.

I think I'll just quote you from another comment you made in this exact same thread, because you encapsulated it better than I ever could:

"...If your country is corrupt then yes the people with money have power. Not every country is corrupt enough for people to really buy into it."

This is a fiction. It is a noble lie you are told by people with power. Think semantically. What is corruption? What is "money," "power," etc? In your mind, in countries that you believe to be "one of the good ones," one where by your description the nation "isn't corrupt enough for people to really buy into it"... who controls the nation and how? Realistically, you aren't going to be able to provide an answer to that question that is free from discussing existing corruption, because your idea of supposed societies that cross some arbitrary threshold of being "pure vs corrupt"... doesn't exist in reality. There exists not one corruption-free government, now or ever, in the history of mankind.

This sounds fantastical from your POV but I do mean it as a genuine warning to be heeded. First it starts with gradual scrapes and nicks at the block of reason... stuff exactly like this that everyone engages in on some level, to some degree - it is a transmogrification of the social conscious... soon yet the fascists carve their own damnable Michelangelo from the marble, instead.